• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

CNN Demonizes Vaping

Page 13 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
i'm confused.

are they saying vaping is equal to smoking in terms of addiction, death, harmfulness or all?

cause i'm pretty sure tobacco is pretty much lethal.
 
KMFJD said:
vaping inside a no smoking hotel room? yeah or neah?
Click to expand...

Some of them have updated their policies to explicitly disallow it. However, it's not nearly as detectable as when someone's been smoking in a room...
Those that do, I think are just riding on the hysteria wagon. Smoking in a room will definitely have more impact on it than vaping.
 
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in April that e-cigarette usage among middle- and high-schoolers tripled between 2013 and 2014. Usage among high-schoolers was 13.4% last year.
Click to expand...
This is BY FAR the most disturbing thing about vaping. I think it is evil the way they market this shit to kids and glamorize it.

Fuck vaping. BAN IT!!!
 
nakedfrog said:
This one, however, does. But it does also show that industry is showing awareness of potential issues and remediating them.
Click to expand...

Yep. And many e-liquid manufacturers have gone to the lengths of having ALL their juices 3rd party tested. If you vape, thats who should get your business (I use Mt Baker Vapor. There are others listed HERE).
 
blackangst1 said:
Yep. And many e-liquid manufacturers have gone to the lengths of having ALL their juices 3rd party tested. If you vape, thats who should get your business (I use Mt Baker Vapor. There are others listed HERE).
Click to expand...
The 3rd party industry testing lab failed to identify carcinogens in the liquid that were detected by a University laboratory.
 
 
 
lxskllr said:
I didn't see a single ad targeting kids, unless you take the modern definition that people remain children until some time in their 30s. They're clearly targeting college age, which is not only strictly legal, it carries no moral baggage.
Click to expand...

Yet there was a 3 fold increase in usage among middle and high school age children between 2013-2014. Gee, why do you suppose that is?
 
JulesMaximus said:
Yet there was a 3 fold increase in usage among middle and high school age children between 2013-2014. Gee, why do you suppose that is?
Click to expand...

How about you tell us instead of making us grasp at straws for you to deny one at a time.

I bet the increase in the last decade is 1012051097519038756% Can you guess why?!

While we're at it, can you explain, in simple terms why children who shouldn't be using a product justifies a ban for everyone. Oh, also, also, while you are at it, can you make that reason not also apply to: alcohol, tobacco, pharmaceutical drugs, laughing gas, cars, sex, etc. :whistle:
 
Phoenix86 said:
How about you tell us instead of making us grasp at straws for you to deny one at a time.

I bet the increase in the last decade is 1012051097519038756% Can you guess why?!

While we're at it, can you explain, in simple terms why children who shouldn't be using a product justifies a ban for everyone. Oh, also, also, while you are at it, can you make that reason not also apply to: alcohol, tobacco, pharmaceutical drugs, laughing gas, cars, sex, etc. :whistle:
Click to expand...


Are you thinking of the children? I don't think you're thinking of the children. Just lie back, close your eyes, and think of the children. Then you'll want to ban things.
 
zinfamous said:
No it isn't
Click to expand...

Why start with substantiated claims now?

The irony is, the companies who stand to lose the most and the ones that made those claims in the past. If anything, those companies would be pushing vaping is bad 'science' and those claims should be scrutinized more.

I don't get why people WANT vaping to be bad. Shouldn't people want it to be good so society can safely shift from tobacco to vaping? I get why people are skeptical, that's fine, but even if it were found 100% safe people would still push to ban it.
 
Phoenix86 said:
Why start with substantiated claims now?

The irony is, the companies who stand to lose the most and the ones that made those claims in the past. If anything, those companies would be pushing vaping is bad 'science' and those claims should be scrutinized more.

I don't get why people WANT vaping to be bad. Shouldn't people want it to be good so society can safely shift from tobacco to vaping? I get why people are skeptical, that's fine, but even if it were found 100% safe people would still push to ban it.
Click to expand...

Well, Reynolds and Morris were the ones pushing hard to regulate the upstart vaping manufacturers several years ago. ...and no, this isn't because they saw them as competing with cigarettes, it's because R & M were working on their own e-cigarette products, full-stop, and simply wanted a clean tablet to flood the market when they were ready.

It's not enough to already have enough cash to destroy any competition in your way, might as well get the government to do it for you, on the taxpayer's dime.

http://www.journalnow.com/business/...cle_77b131f5-540d-5f02-927c-733bac751529.html

http://www.electroniccigaretteconsu...s-pushes-the-vuse-is-it-the-best-e-cigarette/

http://vaping.info/news/2014/ava-rj-reynolds-ban-e-cigarettes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._J._Reynolds_Vapor_Company (founded in 2012--began lobbying to ban vaping in 2013-2014. lol)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top